Take a free ride?
Free public transit is a relatively easy political platform to promote. Throwing in buzzwords like racial/socioeconomic equity and climate justice (though dubiously connected to free transportation), local legislators can often gain quick approval—and a pat on the back—in many communities. This year, touting CA’s supposed surplus, Gov. Newsom considered dedicating $750 million to sustain three months of free public transit statewide. However, transit experts and studies on existing programs are dubious about the realistic consequences of taxpayer-funded free rides. Various sources below. To receive daily updates of new Opp Now stories, click here.
Consultant Doug Rubin (quoted in Politico) explains why politicians are drawn to the free transit concept, especially in our age of political confusion:
“There’s such a disconnect now between voters and elected officials and policy. People think they don’t see a lot of results,” said veteran Democratic consultant Doug Rubin, who worked for one of Wu’s rivals in last year’s Boston mayoral race. “So when you get an issue like fare free transit, where it’s a very clear thing people can understand and see when they get on [a bus], it becomes a very powerful issue.”
Read the whole thing here.
Victoria Sepulveda in SFGATE explores who wins from the free transit concept:
First of all, there is the basic benefit to commuters (and really anyone who needs to get around our sprawling state). Taking the bus or train or ferry instead of a car means you don’t have to spend as much on gas. Commuters who opt for transit over driving solo also save in subtler, long-term ways, by reducing wear and tear to their vehicle and getting a discount on insurance costs for driving less. Parking costs are either cheaper (like at BART stations) or nonexistent, and tolls vanish.
Public transit also benefits people without cars. Bicyclists can hop on transit to go farther and faster than they could on their own power, and teens, students and low-income people can get around more easily and affordably. Mobility becomes something that all people can access, not just those who can afford to store and maintain a vehicle.
Read the whole thing here.
However, if such a system isn’t convenient enough and doesn’t offer sufficiently high-quality service, it’ll be utilized by few riders, as Lisa Kashinsky and Tanya Snyder describe in Politico:
… riders — including those with low incomes — consistently say that what really matters to them is whether the bus comes frequently enough to be useful.
“Low-income riders are just as time sensitive, if not more time sensitive, than middle-income and upper-income riders,” said Zabe Bent, director of design at the National Association of City Transportation Officials. “And a lot of that is because they’re one missed bus away from losing their jobs or getting a reprimand on their job, or late fees or childcare penalties…”
“Cars are much more expensive than transit,” Elokda said. “People are willing to pay more to drive a car to gain that convenience. So until transit can match that convenience, it’ll be no match for the car.”
Read the whole thing here.
This idea is echoed by David Zipper, writing in Bloomberg:
The nonprofit advocacy group Transit Center found that low-income and new riders would prefer more frequent and reliable service to a reduction in fares.
Read the whole thing here.
And this problem of lower quality service has been observed in the city of Alameda. They ended their failed free transit program this year. Angelica Cabral reports on The Mercury News:
The city will end its free shuttle service because of low ridership and numerous complaints… the shuttle has had problems the past few years. Many people who complained to the city said the driver sometimes did not stop for riders at shuttle stops or changed routes and bypassed a stop. Other complaints were about a lack of shuttles running during lunch hours, drivers’ behavior and the management of MV Transportation of San Leandro, which runs the shuttle.
Some people said that MV Transportation did not come up with a plan to provide service at the Little John Commons, a residential complex for seniors and veterans, when the shuttle stop was blocked because of construction. Riders said that MV Transportation ignored emails and never gave a definitive response on how it would handle the change.
Read the whole thing here.
Even considering Californian cities where free transit is claimed as successful, it may not be possible to apply their transportation programs in other places. Zeroing in on L.A., Yingtao Lu of Crosstown relays “The cost of free”:
Only through copious amounts of emergency federal aid has [Los Angeles’] Metro been able to maintain a fare-free bus network for the past 21 months.
Read the whole thing here.
Finally, Merc reader Dan Winter indicates the seemingly obvious fact about “free transit,” a truth of which taxpayers are—or should be—well aware:
But please be accurate when referencing economic facts that people may use to make decisions. There is no free transit or even free passes. All transit is paid for by taxpayers or from fees.
Those may be given by transit agencies at no cost to the recipient, but they are NOT free. Moving someone from a car to a bus may allow us to shift spending from adding lanes, but that bus is still paid for by someone. Maybe you are suggesting that adding passengers requires no additional funding since the buses run already, but even that will require administrative overhead for the passes, wear and tear on the seats, etc. which will be covered by those who pay to use transit or are taxed to fund transit they don’t use. There is no free lunch.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Wikimedia Commons